OK, @MeganC, I think you're being too concrete here; that, I'm sure you will acknowledge, is your predisposition, but I'm going to suggest that you use it to your and our advantage by focusing on comprehending what @NickF is asserting rather than proving him wrong. I do this because I believe you're predominantly on the same page.
Example One:
If you accept that, let's add this analogy: if one freely belongs to the Mafia and freely and openly represents the Mafia by operating a community outreach center that everyone in the community knows is a front for the Mafia and doles out benevolent funds predominantly for the purpose of gaining positive PR and making it more difficult to demonize them. The money comes from theft, coercion and threats of death. Is the money stolen? The person operating the benevolent association knows exactly where the money comes from, because he's not retarded. He still convinces himself that he's doing God's Work by operating the center. Is he or is he not distributing stolen goods?
Example Two:
I don't resonate completely with this following statement of yours, Megan, but one thing it does point to is that Biblical Families is indeed an ekklesia (two or more gathering together for a purpose, in this case not only spiritual but specifically about conducting families according to scriptural principles) and therefore fully qualifies as fellowship:
What I don't hear Nick asserting is that he is refusing to fellowship with anyone because he or she belongs to a 'church.' That qualifies as a red herring, especially given that we all know, if we're honest with ourselves, that both the pressure to belong to a church and the practice of ostracism and rejection for not belonging is nearly ubiquitous in the Christian culture.
Like Nick and LovesDogs and probably likely pretty much all of you, I love animals -- and perhaps not like most of you, I also believe we will see our animals in paradise -- so I don't have a particular issue with the fact that animals are being fed in a church (other than I hope that they're being consistent in their pro-life stand, which would include not just feeding them but holding themselves accountable for every ramification of feeding them), but I do recoil at the suggestion that the priest deserves any special commendation for doing so. In the end, he is giving away other people's money. Had his Church not coerced so much of that money out of the pockets of a populace that is clearly partially mired in extreme poverty because of that spiritual theft, the people probably would be much closer to being able to afford to feed their own dogs.
Example One:
These two truths about the Roman church are inseparable; they have gone hand in hand since its inception at the hands of Constantine and the Early Church Fathers.
If you accept that, let's add this analogy: if one freely belongs to the Mafia and freely and openly represents the Mafia by operating a community outreach center that everyone in the community knows is a front for the Mafia and doles out benevolent funds predominantly for the purpose of gaining positive PR and making it more difficult to demonize them. The money comes from theft, coercion and threats of death. Is the money stolen? The person operating the benevolent association knows exactly where the money comes from, because he's not retarded. He still convinces himself that he's doing God's Work by operating the center. Is he or is he not distributing stolen goods?
Example Two:
I see you both as individuals who love Yah and serve Yeshua, as well as both being individuals who recognize the inappropriate levels of suppression that Organized Religion impose on believers. You both recognize that
asserts that fellowship is not dependent on belonging to exclusive clubs with loyalty oaths and other homogenizing creeds.
I don't resonate completely with this following statement of yours, Megan, but one thing it does point to is that Biblical Families is indeed an ekklesia (two or more gathering together for a purpose, in this case not only spiritual but specifically about conducting families according to scriptural principles) and therefore fully qualifies as fellowship:
The use of the word 'church' as a translation for 'ekklesia' has been very purposefully manipulated by the Roman Church and its other Organized-Religion descendants to create what they present as an imperative, not to just gather together in fellowship, but to do so within the confines of picking a particular factionalized denomination that is designed to shut out the majority of the human race, becoming a formal member, swearing loyalty oaths to that denomination, and regularly attending services at the building they very craftily also call a 'church,' all under the direction of people called something like elders with powers well beyond that which is granted them by Scripture and a pastor or priest with powers never mentioned in The Bible, both of which operate as if they are intermediaries between us and Yah and Yeshua.
What I don't hear Nick asserting is that he is refusing to fellowship with anyone because he or she belongs to a 'church.' That qualifies as a red herring, especially given that we all know, if we're honest with ourselves, that both the pressure to belong to a church and the practice of ostracism and rejection for not belonging is nearly ubiquitous in the Christian culture.
Like Nick and LovesDogs and probably likely pretty much all of you, I love animals -- and perhaps not like most of you, I also believe we will see our animals in paradise -- so I don't have a particular issue with the fact that animals are being fed in a church (other than I hope that they're being consistent in their pro-life stand, which would include not just feeding them but holding themselves accountable for every ramification of feeding them), but I do recoil at the suggestion that the priest deserves any special commendation for doing so. In the end, he is giving away other people's money. Had his Church not coerced so much of that money out of the pockets of a populace that is clearly partially mired in extreme poverty because of that spiritual theft, the people probably would be much closer to being able to afford to feed their own dogs.
